| Author |
 Topic  |
|
TitanPa 
"Here four more"
|
 Posted - 09/13/2006 : 19:54:06
|
I first saw the trailer on Tv. I thought it looked pretty interesting, yet I never heard anything about it. I started hearing good things about it. Oscar contender and all. It only opened in select theaters a couple weeks ago and opened nation wide last week. So it only got to 5th place on the movies list.
I asked my wife to see it with me. It would be our Anniversary date movie. She neevr heard of it. She didnt trust my pick for a movie. I am one of those guys who picks a movie to rent or see and it always bombs. Maybe because I pick independent movies or B type movies. So on her better judgement she agreed. She heard good things about the movie too. Yet we never found anyone who watched the movie. We even asked the cashier who we bought the tickets from. She didnt see it. But she heard good things to.
Of course this was an independent movie. We never heard or saw of the beginning openers. It was looking pretty bad when the movie started.
But we stayed awake the whole time and the movie kept progressing. It kept our interest the whole time. It kept me on the edge of our seats. I loved the movie. Only after did I fond my wife loved it too. This was a great cast to have. I loved everything about the movie. I suggest other watch it too. I cant say anything more abotu it. Too much would be given away. Anyone else who saw it and loved it? Maybe its just us.
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 09/13/2006 : 20:13:51
|
It's not even playing here. And I know my wife won't go see it with me if it was.
If I ever see it, I'll post something...  |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 10:23:52
|
| Now that I've read your (more than 4 word) review and looked this up on IMDb, I'm hoping it will come here so I can see it. Thanks for the heads up! |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 17:28:26
|
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Finally saw The Illusionist!!!!
I've been trying to get out to see if for weeks. Funny, I had the same experience you did, where my spouse didn't trust my judgment. But, I finally got him to go with me.
I thought it was really good. Kinda M. Night-ish. Edward Norton continues to be captivating on screen. And Paul Giamatti is quiet and perfectly cast here.
Glad I kept pushing until I got someone to go with me.
Anyone else see this?
Can't wait to see The Prestige. Looks equally interesting.
EM :) |
Edited by - Montgomery on 10/09/2006 19:47:24 |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 19:42:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Finally saw The Illusionist!!!!
I've been trying to get out to see if for weeks. Funny, I had the same experience you did, where my spouse didn't trust my judgment. But, I finally got him to go with me.
I thought it was really good. Kinda M. Night-ish. Edward Norton continues to be captivating on screen. And Paul Giamatti is quiet and perfectly cast here.
Glad I kept pushing until I got someone to go with me.
Anyone else see this?
Can't wait to see The Prestige. Looks equally interesting.
EM :)
Ahhhh. you already gave away the idea of the whole movie. I went not thinking of M. Night. sat through the whole movie not questioning the movie itself. Just went along with the movie. I hate when I keep questioning the intent of the movie during the movie. It wasnt only til the very end that I thought to myself. This is going to be an M. Night kinda movie. And I was right. I was glad that I only thought of it to the end. I think thats why I dont really like M Knight movies any more. After 'Sixth Sense' I keep questioning his movies and being right about it halfway through the movie. I think thats why I enjoyed the movie 'The Game' years ago. there were no movies to base it on. Now a movie has so many twists that your bound to get it right from the start of the movie. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 19:47:41
|
I saw it a few weeks ago. Norton's always good; and Giamatti is brilliant in this.
However, the story never shook the feel of a novella for me. There was something missing.
This made sense later when I discovered the short story it was based on. The movie added a plot point that was nowhere in the short story. The short's denouement has to do with the final illusion and has a more ontological bent, while the movie does what IT does.
Then, it occurred to me that the film essentially laid Houdini (1953) on top of the Millhauser story. The thing that was missing was pretty much the thing that is missing from the Tony Curtis film: raison d'etre.
Curtis portrays Houdini in a very hollow fashion - so accomplished an illusionist as Houdini receives very little depth from his performance. Frankly, I thought Paul Michael Glaser did a better job in The Great Houdini (1976) -- a made-for-TV-movie, with Starsky, no doubt (and I know part of this is just a function of the relative time periods). Ironically, Norton plays Eisenheim in an empassioned way, but the story possesses a hollowness reminiscent of the Curtis film, but not in the same way.
Ultimately, The Illusionist felt like it possessed an artificial depth because the approach to the resolution was both unlikely and, IMHO, unnecessary in a rational way. The short story is brilliant, but I can understand how it might not sustain a movie. It's just that the angle added ultimately comes up a bit flat (though the Giamatti character does wonders in trying to prop it up).
Listen, I recommend the film, so don't get me wrong. But that one thing was bothering me. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 10/09/2006 20:12:39 |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 19:50:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Ahhhh. you already gave away the idea of the whole movie. I went not thinking of M. Night. sat through the whole movie not questioning the movie itself. Just went along with the movie. I hate when I keep questioning the intent of the movie during the movie. It wasnt only til the very end that I thought to myself. This is going to be an M. Night kinda movie. And I was right. I was glad that I only thought of it to the end. I think thats why I dont really like M Knight movies any more. After 'Sixth Sense' I keep questioning his movies and being right about it halfway through the movie. I think thats why I enjoyed the movie 'The Game' years ago. there were no movies to base it on. Now a movie has so many twists that your bound to get it right from the start of the movie.
Oops! Didn't mean to ruin it for anyone else. I put a SPOILERS on my entry, to try to warn unsuspecting readers off.
That said. I did NOT guess anything. And I enjoyed it thoroughly. I try not to be so smart in the movie theatre. I find all films are more rewarding that way. For example, "Dude, Where's My Car?" I didn't try to guess where the car was. 
Sometimes I can't help it and I am just too smart and guess. But, I try very hard not to.
I did not know what this movie was about or where it was taking me, so just enjoyed the ride.
Ed Norton's a babe! So, there's that, too.
EM :)
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 20:15:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Ed Norton's a babe! So, there's that, too.
Oops: did I forget to mention that too?  |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 02:21:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Ed Norton's a babe! So, there's that, too.
Oops: did I forget to mention that too?
Can it really be mentioned too much? I think not.
EM :) |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 09:47:05
|
| It can never be mentioned too much. Ed Norton's a babe. |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 15:28:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
It can never be mentioned too much. Ed Norton's a babe.
Love the beard in The Illusionist.
Have you ever seen Death To Smoochy. ???
Dumb movie. Ed is extra hot.
EM :) |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 22:57:42
|
I just saw it on disk. I found it FAR superior to THE PRESTIGE, for reasons I can't go into without spoiling two different endings.
Let's just say I could tag along with the Grand Reveal in this movie much better than I could in THE PRESTIGE. And Edward Norton's performance was...mesmerizing.
EDIT: Monty, SMOOCHY is one of my favorites. Let's start a Guilty Pleasures thread! |
Edited by - randall on 01/22/2007 22:59:11 |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 07:38:45
|
| I got this film from Netflix over the weekend and honestly, I loved it. But then, as I said, I agree that Norton's a babe. I wasn't expecting a Shyamalan ending, so I was suprised when it came. I too agree that Giamatti was stellar in this, and I was surprised at Rufus Sewell. I wasn't so impressed with Jessica Biel, but Norton never ceases to amaze me. I liked it. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 03:07:57
|
| Just watched the director's commentary, in which he explained the way the illusions could have been performed at the turn of the century, and since he included the sword gag, now I'm happy. [See the PRESTIGE thread.] |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 04:21:27
|
Hated it, hated it, hated it. Stupid movie.
1) Saw the Shyamalan ending coming a mile away, just because of the way they chose to reveal some things and not reveal others.
2) Bullshit are those tricks possible. We can't do some of that shit NOW, he certainly couldn't do it back in 17-whatever.
3) Cliche setup. Let's see, what do we have here, the hot young artist/performer, the girl he's madly in love with, and the jealous Bad Fiancee who threatens to keep them apart? I've seen this film before, and the gimmick in this film is magic tricks rather than, say, a giant sinking boat, anachronistic '70s pop tunes or Romeo & Juliet. The fact that it's a cliche isn't actually the problem on its own, but you add that together with the next thing:
4) Did anyone really buy the romance? I know I sure didn't. Where's the "I'm flying, Jack" moment? This is not a love story for the ages, there's no chemistry and the whole film is leaden and dull.
Honestly, I'm not even a fan of Edward Norton. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 13:05:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
2) Bullshit are those tricks possible. We can't do some of that shit NOW, he certainly couldn't do it back in 17-whatever.
Well, the rest of your post is your opinion, to which you're certainly entitled, but item #2 is NOT bullshit, and that's a fact. Each trick, including the "ghosts," including the sword, including the orange tree, was based on an illusion known and performable at the time. Now, the filmmakers certainly "cheated" by enhancing these tricks in post-production [mainly for shooting time, according to the director] for the movie, but you're mistaken when you say they were beyond Victorian technology. Read Jim Steinmeyer's wonderful HIDING THE ELEPHANT for the "ghost" gag and lots more.
Re the ending: did it really happen that way? Remember that the movie is narrated by the Inspector, an "amateur conjurer." It's his point of view. He might be wrong...
It's THE PRESTIGE which veers off into the impossible, not this one. |
Edited by - randall on 06/21/2007 13:14:50 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The Illusionist
